Clinically Valuable Quality Control for PET/MRI Systems: Consensus Recommendation From the HYBRID Consortium
暂无分享,去创建一个
Adam E. Hansen | Claude Comtat | Michel Koole | Ronald Peeters | Ronald Boellaard | Francesco Padormo | Paul Marsden | Alejandra Valladares | Thomas Beyer | Zacharias Chalampalakis | Sahar Ahangari | Laura DalToso | Jane Mackewn | Johan Nuyts | Sebastian Poth | Esteban Solari | Ivo Rausch | R. Boellaard | J. Nuyts | T. Beyer | C. Comtat | P. Marsden | A. Hansen | F. Padormo | M. Koole | J. Mackewn | I. Rausch | S. Ahangari | R. Peeters | Z. Chalampalakis | A. Valladares | L. DalToso | S. Poth | E. Solari
[1] Victor Chang,et al. Review and discussion: E-learning for academia and industry , 2016, Int. J. Inf. Manag..
[2] Karen L. Blondeau,et al. Accuracy testing of dose calibrators , 1985 .
[3] Hye-Sun An,et al. Performance measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs using NEMA NU 2-2007 , 2009 .
[4] Maurizio Conti,et al. Physics of pure and non-pure positron emitters for PET: a review and a discussion , 2016, EJNMMI Physics.
[5] Harald H. Quick,et al. NEMA image quality phantom measurements and attenuation correction in integrated PET/MR hybrid imaging , 2015, EJNMMI Physics.
[6] H. Zaidi,et al. Design and performance evaluation of a whole-body Ingenuity TF PET–MRI system , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.
[7] Paul J Keall,et al. The integration of MRI in radiation therapy: collaboration of radiographers and radiation therapists , 2017, Journal of medical radiation sciences.
[8] Suzanne E. Lapi,et al. Calibration setting numbers for dose calibrators for the PET isotopes (52)Mn, (64)Cu, (76)Br, (86)Y, (89)Zr, (124)I. , 2016, Applied radiation and isotopes : including data, instrumentation and methods for use in agriculture, industry and medicine.
[9] R. Boellaard. Standards for PET Image Acquisition and Quantitative Data Analysis , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
[10] Ivo Rausch,et al. Unterschiede in Systemeigenschaften, Qualitätsstandards und Berücksichtigung internationaler FDG-PET/CT-Bildgebungsrichtlinien , 2014 .
[11] Meghal Patel,et al. Automated Quantitative Analysis of American College of Radiology PET Phantom Images , 2019, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.
[12] Aurélie Kas,et al. 14. Quantitative performance of a Signa PET/MR based on the NEMA NU 2-2007 standard , 2016 .
[13] Mohammad Mehdi Khalighi,et al. PET Imaging Stability Measurements During Simultaneous Pulsing of Aggressive MR Sequences on the SIGNA PET/MR System , 2018, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
[14] S. Ourselin,et al. MR Imaging-Guided Partial Volume Correction of PET Data in PET/MR Imaging. , 2016, PET clinics.
[15] Frank P DiFilippo,et al. Positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging: technical review. , 2014, Seminars in roentgenology.
[16] A. Gallamini,et al. PET-guided clinical trials in Hodgkin lymphoma: to agree or not to agree, that is the reviewer’s question , 2017, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
[17] L. Axel,et al. Quality assurance methods and phantoms for magnetic resonance imaging: report of AAPM nuclear magnetic resonance Task Group No. 1. , 1990, Medical physics.
[18] Michael S Hofman,et al. Accuracy of Dose Calibrators for 68Ga PET Imaging: Unexpected Findings in a Multicenter Clinical Pretrial Assessment , 2018, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
[19] Eric J. W. Visser,et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0 , 2014, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
[20] Gaspar Delso,et al. Design Features and Mutual Compatibility Studies of the Time-of-Flight PET Capable GE SIGNA PET/MR System , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.
[21] Thomas Beyer,et al. Quality control for quantitative multicenter whole-body PET/MR studies: A NEMA image quality phantom study with three current PET/MR systems. , 2015, Medical physics.
[22] Russell S. Peak,et al. Part 2: , 2020, Journal of Neural Transmission.
[23] Roel Wierts,et al. A comparison of four radionuclide dose calibrators using various radionuclides and measurement geometries clinically used in nuclear medicine. , 2019, Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics.
[24] In Chan Song,et al. SiPM-PET with a short optical fiber bundle for simultaneous PET-MR imaging , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.
[25] Konstantin Nikolaou,et al. Whole-Body [18F]-FDG-PET/MRI for Oncology: A Consensus Recommendation , 2019, Nuklearmedizin.
[26] Arno Villringer,et al. Physical and organizational provision for installation, regulatory requirements and implementation of a simultaneous hybrid PET/MR-imaging system in an integrated research and clinical setting , 2013, Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine.
[27] Zahi A Fayad,et al. Optimization of yttrium-90 PET for simultaneous PET/MR imaging: A phantom study. , 2016, Medical physics.
[28] Adam Espe Hansen,et al. Cross calibration of the Siemens mMR: easily acquired accurate PET phantom measurements, long term stability and reproducibility , 2015, EJNMMI Physics.
[29] Ho-Ling Liu,et al. Quality Assurance of Clinical MRI Scanners Using ACR MRI Phantom: Preliminary Results , 2004, Journal of Digital Imaging.
[30] John Kornak,et al. Exploration of PET and MRI radiomic features for decoding breast cancer phenotypes and prognosis , 2018, npj Breast Cancer.
[31] N. Aide,et al. Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients , 2013, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
[32] T. Beyer,et al. Variations in Clinical PET/CT Operations: Results of an International Survey of Active PET/CT Users , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
[33] N. Sobol,et al. Preliminary results , 2020, Asymptotic Analysis of Random Walks: Light-Tailed Distributions.
[34] G. Delso,et al. Performance Measurements of the Siemens mMR Integrated Whole-Body PET/MR Scanner , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
[35] Jim E. Everett,et al. Technical review , 1995, Comput. Humanit..
[36] Andrew Mallia. Artifacts and Diagnostic Pitfalls in PET/MRI , 2015 .
[37] H Bergmann,et al. Variation of system performance, quality control standards and adherence to international FDG-PET/CT imaging guidelines , 2014, Nuklearmedizin.
[38] Konstantin Nikolaou,et al. Whole-Body [ 18 F ]-FDG-PET / MRI for Oncology : A Consensus Recommendation * Konsensempfehlungen zur Anwendung der Ganzkörper [ 18 F ]-FDG-PET / MRT in der onkologischen Bildgebung , 2019 .
[39] Osman Ratib,et al. Approaches for the optimization of MR protocols in clinical hybrid PET/MRI studies , 2013, Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine.
[40] Meghal Patel,et al. Automated quantitative analysis of ACR PET phantom images. , 2019, Journal of nuclear medicine technology.
[41] W. Oyen,et al. EANM/EARL FDG-PET/CT accreditation - summary results from the first 200 accredited imaging systems , 2017, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
[42] Weili Lin,et al. Quantitative Comparison of Misregistration in Abdominal and Pelvic Organs Between PET/MRI and PET/CT: Effect of Mode of Acquisition and Type of Sequence on Different Organs. , 2015, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.